Literature DB >> 24617899

FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older.

Wee Yang Pang1, Charles A Inderjeeth.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare two well-validated tools--the FRAX without bone mineral density (BMD) and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool (OST)--in predicting osteoporosis and to define thresholds above and below which it would be reasonable to recommend omitting BMD testing.
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: General practices in Western Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 70 and older responding to a prospective audit of osteoporosis investigation and management for whom dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan results and clinical risk factor data were available (N = 626). MEASUREMENTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared, upper and lower thresholds for omission of screening BMD were proposed, and the statistical performance measures for the tests are reported.
RESULTS: The areas under the ROC curves for the OST (0.76-0.82) were slightly better than for FRAX without BMD 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk (0.64-0.76) in predicting osteoporosis at the defined sites. At defined lower thresholds, the tests were comparable in identifying a group with low osteoporosis risk (sensitivity 89.6-92.2%, specificity 35.0-39.9%), translating into 33.5% to 36.1% of tests saved at a cost of missing 7.8% to 10.4% of individuals with osteoporosis on BMD criteria. It was not possible to identify a useful upper threshold.
CONCLUSION: At the defined thresholds, the OST is as good as FRAX without BMD in identifying a low-risk population subgroup for whom screening BMD can reasonably be omitted. This could reduce costs and improve access to treatment.
© 2014, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2014, The American Geriatrics Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FRAX; Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool; aged; bone mineral density; osteoporosis; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24617899     DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12696

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  6 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density.

Authors:  S Nayak; D L Edwards; A A Saleh; S L Greenspan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis.

Authors:  S T Williams; P T Lawrence; K L Miller; J L Crook; J LaFleur; G W Cannon; R E Nelson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-07-30       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Strategies for Selecting Men for BMD Testing.

Authors:  Susan J Diem; Katherine W Peters; Margaret L Gourlay; John T Schousboe; Brent C Taylor; Eric S Orwoll; Jane A Cauley; Lisa Langsetmo; Carolyn J Crandall; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 5.  Is calcaneal quantitative ultrasound useful as a prescreen stratification tool for osteoporosis?

Authors:  K Thomsen; D B Jepsen; L Matzen; A P Hermann; T Masud; J Ryg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Comparison of OSTA, FRAX and BMI for Predicting Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in a Han Population in Beijing: A Cross Sectional Study.

Authors:  Zihan Fan; Xiaoyu Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Yong Yang; Qi Fei; Ai Guo
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.458

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.